增强外放射治疗的质量保证:EPID ASi1200和ArcCHECK®幻影在VMAT计划中的应用研究

IF 2.8 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
M. Chenhaji , M. El Kafhali , M. Tahmasbi , D. Benchekroun , I. Bouadel , F.Z. Erradi
{"title":"增强外放射治疗的质量保证:EPID ASi1200和ArcCHECK®幻影在VMAT计划中的应用研究","authors":"M. Chenhaji ,&nbsp;M. El Kafhali ,&nbsp;M. Tahmasbi ,&nbsp;D. Benchekroun ,&nbsp;I. Bouadel ,&nbsp;F.Z. Erradi","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2025.103191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) offers precise dose delivery through dynamic modulation. However, its complexity necessitates robust quality assurance (QA) procedures. This study evaluated the Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) ASi1200 and ArcCHECK® phantom in verifying VMAT plans for multiple anatomical sites.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 73 VMAT treatment plans (brain, abdomen, thorax, pelvis, and head and neck) generated in the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) and delivered via the TrueBeam STx linear accelerator were evaluated. The calculated doses were verified using both EPID ASi1200 and ArcCHECK® systems. Gamma index analysis was performed with a 3 %/3 mm criterion and a 10 % threshold. Statistical analyses, including paired t-tests, normality testing, and Spearman correlations, were conducted to compare the agreement between the two systems across anatomical sites.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Both verification tools achieved high Gamma pass rates (&gt;99 %). EPID showed significantly higher agreement in pelvic plans (p &lt; 0.001), while differences in other sites were statistically non-significant or clinically negligible (&lt;0.3 %). Correlations between systems were weak to moderate, indicating complementary rather than interchangeable outputs.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>EPID and ArcCHECK® are both reliable for VMAT QA, with EPID offering a distinct advantage for pelvic plans. Either tool may be sufficient for routine verification, but dual-method QA is advisable for highly modulated or clinically critical cases.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for practice</h3><div>EPID can serve as the primary QA method for pelvic cases, streamlining workflow without compromising accuracy, while site complexity should guide tool selection elsewhere.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":"31 6","pages":"Article 103191"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enhancing quality assurance in external radiation therapy: A study on the use of EPID ASi1200 and ArcCHECK® phantom in VMAT plans\",\"authors\":\"M. Chenhaji ,&nbsp;M. El Kafhali ,&nbsp;M. Tahmasbi ,&nbsp;D. Benchekroun ,&nbsp;I. Bouadel ,&nbsp;F.Z. Erradi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.radi.2025.103191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) offers precise dose delivery through dynamic modulation. However, its complexity necessitates robust quality assurance (QA) procedures. This study evaluated the Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) ASi1200 and ArcCHECK® phantom in verifying VMAT plans for multiple anatomical sites.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 73 VMAT treatment plans (brain, abdomen, thorax, pelvis, and head and neck) generated in the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) and delivered via the TrueBeam STx linear accelerator were evaluated. The calculated doses were verified using both EPID ASi1200 and ArcCHECK® systems. Gamma index analysis was performed with a 3 %/3 mm criterion and a 10 % threshold. Statistical analyses, including paired t-tests, normality testing, and Spearman correlations, were conducted to compare the agreement between the two systems across anatomical sites.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Both verification tools achieved high Gamma pass rates (&gt;99 %). EPID showed significantly higher agreement in pelvic plans (p &lt; 0.001), while differences in other sites were statistically non-significant or clinically negligible (&lt;0.3 %). Correlations between systems were weak to moderate, indicating complementary rather than interchangeable outputs.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>EPID and ArcCHECK® are both reliable for VMAT QA, with EPID offering a distinct advantage for pelvic plans. Either tool may be sufficient for routine verification, but dual-method QA is advisable for highly modulated or clinically critical cases.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for practice</h3><div>EPID can serve as the primary QA method for pelvic cases, streamlining workflow without compromising accuracy, while site complexity should guide tool selection elsewhere.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47416,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiography\",\"volume\":\"31 6\",\"pages\":\"Article 103191\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078817425003359\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078817425003359","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

体积调制电弧疗法(VMAT)通过动态调制提供精确的剂量递送。然而,它的复杂性需要强有力的质量保证(QA)程序。本研究评估了电子门静脉成像设备(EPID) ASi1200和ArcCHECK®幻影在验证多个解剖部位的VMAT计划中的作用。方法对Eclipse治疗计划系统(TPS)生成的73个VMAT治疗方案(脑、腹、胸、骨盆、头颈部)进行评估,并通过TrueBeam STx直线加速器传递。使用EPID ASi1200和ArcCHECK®系统验证计算出的剂量。Gamma指数分析以3% / 3mm标准和10%阈值进行。统计分析包括配对t检验、正态性检验和Spearman相关性,以比较两种系统在解剖部位之间的一致性。结果两种验证工具都获得了很高的Gamma通过率(> 99%)。EPID在骨盆平面上的一致性显著提高(p < 0.001),而其他部位的差异在统计学上无显著性或临床上可忽略不计(p < 0.3%)。系统之间的相关性从弱到中等,表明输出是互补的,而不是可互换的。结论EPID和ArcCHECK®在VMAT QA中都是可靠的,EPID在骨盆计划中具有明显的优势。任何一种工具都可能足以进行常规验证,但对于高度调制或临床危重病例,双方法QA是可取的。epid可以作为骨盆病例的主要QA方法,在不影响准确性的情况下简化工作流程,而部位复杂性应指导其他地方的工具选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Enhancing quality assurance in external radiation therapy: A study on the use of EPID ASi1200 and ArcCHECK® phantom in VMAT plans

Introduction

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) offers precise dose delivery through dynamic modulation. However, its complexity necessitates robust quality assurance (QA) procedures. This study evaluated the Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) ASi1200 and ArcCHECK® phantom in verifying VMAT plans for multiple anatomical sites.

Methods

A total of 73 VMAT treatment plans (brain, abdomen, thorax, pelvis, and head and neck) generated in the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) and delivered via the TrueBeam STx linear accelerator were evaluated. The calculated doses were verified using both EPID ASi1200 and ArcCHECK® systems. Gamma index analysis was performed with a 3 %/3 mm criterion and a 10 % threshold. Statistical analyses, including paired t-tests, normality testing, and Spearman correlations, were conducted to compare the agreement between the two systems across anatomical sites.

Results

Both verification tools achieved high Gamma pass rates (>99 %). EPID showed significantly higher agreement in pelvic plans (p < 0.001), while differences in other sites were statistically non-significant or clinically negligible (<0.3 %). Correlations between systems were weak to moderate, indicating complementary rather than interchangeable outputs.

Conclusion

EPID and ArcCHECK® are both reliable for VMAT QA, with EPID offering a distinct advantage for pelvic plans. Either tool may be sufficient for routine verification, but dual-method QA is advisable for highly modulated or clinically critical cases.

Implications for practice

EPID can serve as the primary QA method for pelvic cases, streamlining workflow without compromising accuracy, while site complexity should guide tool selection elsewhere.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Radiography
Radiography RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
34.60%
发文量
169
审稿时长
63 days
期刊介绍: Radiography is an International, English language, peer-reviewed journal of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy. Radiography is the official professional journal of the College of Radiographers and is published quarterly. Radiography aims to publish the highest quality material, both clinical and scientific, on all aspects of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy and oncology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信